Abhishek Srivastava vs Union Of India And 5 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11230 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Abhishek Srivastava vs Union Of India And 5 Others on 7 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177827-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - A No. - 15140 of 2025   
 
   Abhishek Srivastava    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Union of India and 5 others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Akhilesh Pandey, Akhilesh Kumar, Ravi Kumar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
A.S.G.I., Prabhakar Tripathi
 
   
 
     
 
 Chief Justice's Court
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE  
 
 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.      

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the applicant of Original Application (O.A.) No. 692 of 2015 (Abhishek Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others) challenging the order dated 20.01.2023 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (?the Tribunal?) has dismissed the O.A., thereby denying the petitioner's prayer for grant of compassionate appointment.

3. The O.A. was filed stating that father of the petitioner, while working in the respondent-Department, died on 08.01.2011 and an application dated 23.01.2011 was submitted by the petitioner's mother before the competent authority requesting grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The Department proceeded to consider the claim; asked for completion of certain formalities by the petitioner and, on 25.06.2014, the petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that since he had obtained only 55 merit points and only limited vacancies were available, his case could not be recommended for appointment.

4. The petitioner filed the aforesaid O.A. on 15.05.2015 challenging the said order dated 25.06.2014. The Tribunal, after exchange of affidavits, proceeded to consider the O.A. and having noticed consistent and persistent non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel on various dates, dismissed the same on merits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Department erred in rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment by awarding only 55 merit points, whereas the petitioner had got 60 merit points. Reference was made to Annexure-8 to the writ petition, which is a copy of additional check list and submission has been made that 60 merit points obtained by the petitioner were wrongly corrected as 55. Submission is that qua column 1(b) meant for terminal benefits, initially the Department had awarded 5 points but then scored it off and mentioned 'Nil' and, therefore, the petitioner suffered loss of 5 merit points and had such correction not been made by the Department, the petitioner would have been eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order impugned and submission has been made that the petitioner was never serious about his claim which fact stands reflected from the findings recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that whenever the case was posted for hearing, no body appeared to press the O.A. and even then the Tribunal, after careful consideration of the matter, found no substance in the petitioner's claim. It is further contended that the writ petition has been filed after two years and eight months from the date of the order impugned without offering any cogent explanation qua the delay/laches and, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed, both on the ground of inordinate laches as well as on merits.

7. We have considered the submissions made before us and have perused the material available on record.

8. The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents on 25.06.2014 which order was challenged by him before the Tribunal after 11 months, i.e. on 15.05.2015. The Tribunal, in paragraph no. 8 of the order impugned, has recorded that on 20.01.2023, there was default on the part of the applicant/petitioner in revised call of the case and the counsel for the respondent Department was heard and on a previous date i.e. 02.12.2022 also, none was present for the applicant/petitioner, whereas the respondents were present. Nevertheless, the Tribunal, as per the applicable rules of procedure, instead of dismissing the O.A. in default, proceeded to consider the case on merits and having examined the same, it was observed that 12 years had passed since when the father of the applicant had died and, further, the concerned Committee having considered the petitioner's case on merits, found that he had obtained inadequate points in comparison to others and, following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana: 1994 SCC (4) 138, the O.A. was dismissed.

9. This writ petition has been filed after 2 years and 8 months after the order was passed by the Tribunal. As regards the delay and laches, statement has been made in paragraph nos. 20 and 21 of the writ petition that due to financial crisis and illness of petitioner's mother, he could not connect with his counsel and, therefore, the counsel did not take any interest in the matter before the Tribunal and when petitioner contacted his counsel, he demanded fees for final hearing which demand could not be fulfilled by the petitioner and on account of non-appearance of petitioner's counsel, the O.A. was decided ex-parte and since the petitioner did not get any information, either regarding status of the case or about order impugned dated 20.01.2023, the writ petition could not be filed within time. Further, in paragraphs no. 22 and 23 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner came to Allahabad and on engagement of the new counsel, it was discovered that O.A. had been dismissed on 20.01.2023; certified copy of the order was obtained on 06.08.2025 and, then, fees was arranged and, thereafter, the writ petition was filed.

10. The Court is not impressed by the explanation offered for the delay and laches in filing the writ petition, particularly when the cause is for compassionate appointment for which, promptness on the part of the claimant is one of the essential requirements. Even the O.A. was filed after about one year from the date of order passed by the Department and before the Tribunal also, no interest was taken by the petitioner in pursuing the matter and the same was not got argued. Therefore, the explanation offered for laches is found meritless and is, accordingly, discarded.

11. Even ignoring laches, if the Court proceeds to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards 55 merit points, it stands reflected from Annexure-8 to the writ petition that while finalizing the additional check list with allocation of points, the Department, in the column 1(a) meant for 'amount of family pension' corrected the figure Rs. 7,580/- as Rs. 5,020/- and in column 1(b), figure of ?terminal benefits? was corrected from Rs. 2,64,946/- to Rs. 6,46,429/-. It was done based upon the documents produced by the petitioner during the course of consideration of his claim. As a result of correction in the aforesaid figures, five (5) points earlier awarded to the petitioner in column 1(b) were corrected as 'Nil' and, consequently, 60 merit points earlier awarded to him came down to 55.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail the corrections made in figures as incorporated in columns 1(a) and 1(b) and even in the O.A., neither any statement of fact was made nor was any ground taken in that regard. Therefore, we are not inclined to assume that the Department erred in preparing the additional check list or in correcting the aforesaid figures. Further, we find no pleadings either in the O.A. or in the writ petition to the effect that even if the petitioner's merit points are treated to be 60, he would have qualified for grant of compassionate appointment.

13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment and, consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition, apart from suffering from vice of laches, has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

October 7, 2025

AKShukla/-